This is definitely not a Picture Post, Thomas. I think you have to reformati it. It is a bit more of your theory of how language works, so I guess should be 'potentailly' a post. But even as that it does seem rather trivial. You would need I think to redynamise this one - more examples maybe?
Martin
'Because things don’t appear to be the known thing; they aren’t that what they seemed to be neither will they become what they might appear to become.'
NOTE: I have put a preferred version of this post at the top, yet have left the previous versions intact (below), to give priority to the editorial eye. Thomas.
Posted by
Thomas Scarborough
One sees, above, the results of two
Google Image searches. First, I searched for 'apples'. Then, I searched for 'pommes'. Then I jumbled them up. Pommes, of course, are apples in French. Do not scroll down.
The 'apples' (English) have an ideal form. Several shift even into abstraction or stylization. They only occur singly, and most of them sport only one leaf. They are red, and only red, and are polished to a perfect shine. One apple has been cut: not to eat, but to engrave a picture perfect symbol on it. The 'pommes' (French) belong to a
family of pommes, of various colours: red, green, even yellow. One may take a bite out of them to taste, or cut them through or slice them: to smell their fragrance, or to drop them into a pot. Pommes, too, are always real, unless one should draw one for a child.
Now separate out the apples from the pommes. Scroll down. You probably distinguished most apples from pommes. In so doing, you acknowledged – if just for a moment – that in some important way, apples are not pommes.
(While this example is flawed, try the same with more
distant languages, and more complex words).
Posted by
Thomas Scarborough
One sees, above, the results of two
Google Image searches. First, I searched for 'apples'. Then, I searched for 'pommes'. Then I jumbled them up. Pommes, of course, are apples in French. Do not scroll down.
'Apples' have an ideal form. So much so, in fact, that they tend to shift into abstraction or stylization. Mostly (though not in every case), they sport only one leaf. Apples only occur singly. They are red, and only red, and they are polished to a perfect shine. One apple has been cut, though not to eat it – rather to engrave a picture perfect symbol on it. 'Pommes', on the other hand, belong to a
family of pommes, of various colours: red, green, yellow, even plum. And leaves: they may have one, or two, or none. One may take a bite out of them to taste. One may cut them through, or slice them: to smell their fragrance, or perhaps to drop them in a pot. And pommes are always real, unless one should draw one for a child.
Now separate out the apples from the pommes. Scroll down. You probably accomplished this with 80% accuracy. In so doing, you acknowledged – if just for a moment – that in some important way, apples are not pommes.
(Now try the same with more distant languages, and more complex words).
'Because things don’t appear to be the known thing; they aren’t that what they seemed to be neither will they become what they might appear to become.'
Posted by
Thomas Scarborough
Two
Google Image searches. First, 'apples'. Then, 'pommes'.
(A pomme, of course, is an apple in French).
The 'apples' (English) have an ideal form. Several shift even into abstraction or stylization. They sport one leaf (with two exceptions). They only occur singly. They are red, and only red, and are polished to a perfect shine. One apple has been cut: not to eat, but to engrave a picture perfect symbol on it. The 'pommes' (French) belong to a
family of pommes, of various colours: red, green, yellow, even plum. One may take a bite out of them to taste, or cut them through or slice them: to smell their fragrance, or to drop them into a pot. Pommes, too, are always real, unless one should draw a picture for a child.
Signifier points to signified, we are told, whether 'apple' or 'pomme'. But in English and in French, are the signifieds the same?
